The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Brinkibon held that the postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communications such as telexes; acceptance in such cases is effective when and where the acceptance is received.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Postal (mailbox) rule: under Adams v Lindsell (1818), acceptance by post is effective when the letter is posted (non-instantaneous communication).
- Instantaneous communications precedent: Entores v Miles Far East (1955) established that for telex/instant messages acceptance is effective when and where receipt occurs.
- Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl [1983] affirmed and refined the approach: there is no universal rule overriding common-sense factors; instantaneous methods are normally treated like Entores — acceptance upon receipt.

2. Step-by-step reasoning process
- Fact pattern: Brinkibon involved acceptance sent by telex between different countries.
- Apply legal principles: postal rule applies where transmission is by post (risk and delay inherent). For instantaneous modes (telex/telephone/fax), the rationale for the postal rule (acceptance upon posting despite delay) does not fit.
- House of Lords decision: treated telex as instantaneous; therefore acceptance occurs upon receipt, not upon sending.

3. Calculations / intermediate steps
- No numeric calculations apply. Intermediate legal steps: identify mode (instantaneous), apply Entores principle, conclude effectiveness at time/place of receipt.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- The core holding of Brinkibon is precisely that the postal rule is inapplicable to instantaneous communications; acceptance is effective when received. Lord Wilberforce emphasized case-by-case application but aligned with Entores.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- a. “Application of the postal rule can be implied” — Brinkibon did not establish implied application; it restricted the postal rule for instantaneous methods.
- b. “Acceptance occurs when the letter is posted” — this restates the postal rule, which Brinkibon did not apply to telex/instant methods.
- d. “The offeror must agree that post is appropriate” — Brinkibon did not require express offeror agreement for post; that is not its holding.

6. Conclusion
This reasoning confirms answer c: The postal rule does not apply where the mode of communication is instantaneous.

The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that单项选择题

类似问题

The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a

Which case established the rule that once an offer is countered, it can no longer be accepted?

The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:

The case of Harvey v Facey established that

For acceptance to be valid, it must

Which of the following statements is always TRUE?

Anne found the home of her dreams on Friday and made an offer on it that day. The seller of the home accepted her offer on Tuesday. Choose the most correct statement:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单